- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:08:37 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: public-coremob@w3.org
On Feb 29, 2012, at 17:25 , Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:13:42 +0100, James Graham <jgraham@opera.com> wrote: >> On Wed 29 Feb 2012 02:41:33 PM CET, Arthur Barstow wrote: >>> #2 Test suite - it's good to see any initiative identify test cases as a priority. It seems to me the most effective use of the CG's testing resources for the specs within the CG's interest, would be to directly contribute to existing test suites rather than for the CG to create its own test suite(s). Additionally, if there are test suite gaps for specs of interest, the CG's testing resources should be directed to the relevant WG. [For example, see WebApps' "Testing" column in <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus> for gaps in WebApps' test suites e.g. File API spec.] Let's please not duplicate testing resources. >> >> Yes, I strongly agree with this. If the group wants to release its own *presentation* of test results according to some mobile-centric view of what's important that's fine (although I note upfront that there are deep issues with this kind of thing; it is very hard to make things fair and sets bad incentives for contributers). But all the tests should be drawn from existing test repositories for HTML, WebApps, CSS, etc. and any new tests should be contributed directed to those repositories. > > Couldn't agree more. But that is what I thought is already proposed - if so this is an editorial clarification. > Or did I miss something? I don't think you missed anything. It might take a little while for the test to be submitted and make their way into acceptance/production and all, but that's it :) -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon Coming up soon: I'm teaching a W3C online course on Mobile Web Apps http://www.w3devcampus.com/writing-great-web-applications-for-mobile/
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 17:09:11 UTC